Sunday, January 31, 2016

See his post here for the details. This is what you get when business replaces democracy. The bullet points follow:

1. While the Children in Flint Were Given Poisoned Water to Drink, General Motors Was Given a Special Hookup to the Clean Water.
2. For Just $100 a Day, This Crisis Could’ve Been Prevented.
3. There’s More Than the Lead in Flint’s Water.
4. People’s Homes in Flint Are Now Worth Nothing Because They Cant Be Sold.
5. While They Were Being Poisoned, They Were Also Being Bombed.

"While Clinton and O’Malley had agreed to the [Feb. 4] debate, and the Democratic
National Committee (DNC) had sanctioned it, Bernie Sanders was the lone
holdout, only agreeing to the February 4 event if more debates were
scheduled in the following months. The Sanders campaign also insisted
that each new debate must be held during a weeknight."

538 still thinks Clinton is likely to win, but they did say this recently (hedging their bets):

"But
Sanders would have an avalanche of momentum going for him after wins in
Iowa and New Hampshire. [...] One factor helping Sanders: Voters who
had been attracted to his message before, but who weren’t sure he could
win, would mostly have their doubts removed after he beat Clinton
twice."

Here's an interesting article on literature and multifractals. Therein
it is revealed that stream of consciousness literature was most
representative of multifracticity (aka Multipli City). Multifracticity
itself 'interweaves' other fractals, thereby displaying synius behavior.
This appears to support my thesis stated many times in the Ning forum
that its structure is more stream of consciousness than linearly
structured academic writing. Hence the former is more an enactment of
multifractivism. Interesting indeed.

Saturday, January 30, 2016

Following up on this post, I noted elsewhere that I favor the term syntegral over
integral. With this new term scenius I'm now inclined to take out the gral of syntegral and now call it synius as the noun and adjective for the emerging, alternative, syntegrative work happening at IPS and around the globe.

In this clip (at 0.25) he's convinced that the more the black community gets to know him, the more it will switch from Clinton to Sanders. Then West throws in that for Clinton "the word 'integrity' is not the first thing that comes to mind."

An excerpt from this article, the same underlying theme as the last post:

"I was an art student and, like all art students, I was encouraged
to believe that there were a few great figures like Picasso and
Kandinsky, Rembrandt and Giotto and so on who sort-of appeared out of
nowhere and produced artistic revolution.As I looked at art more and more, I discovered that that wasn’t really a true picture.What really happened was that there was sometimes very fertile scenes
involving lots and lots of people – some of them artists, some of them
collectors, some of them curators, thinkers, theorists, people who were
fashionable and knew what the hip things were – all sorts of people who
created a kind of ecology of talent. And out of that ecology arose some
wonderful work.

"The commons exists outside the typical definitions of the market and the
state. It is not simply a negative to the market’s positive; it is a
parallel economy that does real work—often the most important work.
Without clean air to breathe, for example, or a common fund of knowledge
to serve as feedstock for invention and the arts, human society would
grind to a halt, as would life itself. Yet the commons is functionally
invisible today. Economists disparage it as a relic of benighted times,
and extol private property rights as the key to human progress. The
media pretty much ignores the commons, except for bits and pieces, and
politicians do as well."

In this article Sanders not only calls out the tax dodgers but proposes laws to make them pay their fair share. Notice the word fair. He's not proposing taxing them out of business. As it is many of them not only do not pay any taxes but get tax rebates! If they paid their fair share they'd still make boatloads of profits and their execs would still be rich. Just their sick greed would be curbed. And that's a terrible thing?

See her article here. She provides several examples of those that commit crimes and yet the law is either not enforced to punish effectively. Not least of which is the example of Wall Street and the crash it deliberately caused, where not one of the executives of said banks incurred criminal penalties. Warren encourages us to select a candidate and President who will not only suggest new laws but enforce those already on the book. While she doesn't come right out and say it, it's clear which Democratic candidate that would be (Sanders), and which one it wouldn't be (Clinton). Just follow the campaign money.

Friday, January 29, 2016

Let’s address her bisexuality and the rumor that she is a hermaphrodite. She admits to the former and in an interview
with Barbara Walters denies the latter. Of course this issue was
addressed in the first minute of her latest video Telephone, where her
clothing is stripped off and she gives a crotch shot to the camera in a
see-through leotard. It is obvious she had no dick and one guard remarks
to the other: “See, I told you she didn’t have a dick.”

The point is not so much that she is a medical hermaphrodite but that
she has become a mythical or metaphorical hermaphrodite. The term comes
from the offspring of Hermes and Aphrodite, Hermaphroditis.
The latter is turned into a bi- or intersexual when Salmacis merges
with him in her pool of water. Mythologically a hermaphrodite represents
the union of male and female within any individual, mystically referred
to as “the marriage of heaven and earth.” This also refers to the
mystical marriage between an individual with God or deity. Some might
contend that the former requires the latter, that we must balance the
sexes within ourselves in preparation for the greater marriage of this
balanced self with the divine. In modern mythology this story is played
out in Peter Pan.

Specifically Cat J. Zavis, the Executive Director, dissects the so-called Democratic realists backing Clinton calling them faux. She understands the disillusion we faced when Obama promised us great changes but then capitulated to the Wall Street banks. But she notes that the faux-realists are "timid and fearful to limit ourselves to incremental change --
and it only makes the powerful more powerful." Voting for that agenda "is essentially casting a vote for the lesser evil. This approach to social and political change is steeped in fear. [...] When we narrow our vision of what is possible to what those in power tell us is possible, we actually bolster their power." Instead:

Since crybaby Trump didn't participate in the last Republican debate because he was afraid of a woman, Colbert decided Trump should have a debate with himself. He shows clips of Trump having opposite positions to himself. This isn't because Trump is consciously or intelligently triangulating like Clinton but because the man has no moral or political center, since the entire world revolves around him.

See this story. Trump's only claim to legitimacy is his success as a businessman. The Prince notes that twice before, when Trump was failing badly at it, he had to bail him out. Fact is, Trump sucks at business too and is pretty much worthless.

Great piece here, whereby Greenwald shows how Krugman is now playing a game he has long despised: The Very Serious Person (VSP). Krugman used to criticize those political talking heads that claim only those that agreed with them were 'serious.' And now Krugman is claiming only those who support Clinton are serious policy experts while those for Sanders are not. Greenwald of course lists several with VSP credentials who are in fact for Sanders, but apparently are no longer in Krugman's hypocritical new club.

See this story, this time in TX. It's not at least 12 States that have investigated PP and cleared them of any wrongdoing. And in the TX case, not the perpetrators against PP, the ones that edited the videos, are now up on charges. No surprise though that no Republican will talk about these cases. And it doesn't seem to be changing the Republican drive to defund PP, even though this faux video was their reason for doing it.

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Gone are the days of Obama's "yes we can." Clinton's attacks on Sanders revolve around the notion that he's idealistic and wants drastic change that is not feasible. She wants to maintain the status quo and work incrementally for change, or so she says. So we just can't do what Sanders wants, which by the way is what the majority of the American people want: the kind of democracy we actually used to have and quite successfully. Instead of Clinton's new slogan Sanders should be: Yes we must.

Now that some have been arrested and one killed, their terror network is asserting that the one killed was surrendering with his hands up. This story provides the facts by eyewitnesses. I know, the paranoid terrorist conspiracy will not accept the facts and believe the eyewitnesses are part of the conspiracy.

See this story. Progressives fought back against the DNC favoring Clinton by limiting debates and decided to hold one of their own, despite the DNC chair saying that would disqualify candidates from further DNC sanctioned debates. And when Maddow planned and implemented the added debate the DNC chair relented:

"If MSNBC, all the candidates, and Rachel Maddow show up in New Hampshire
and decide to hold a debate, does it matter if it is sanctioned or not?
The DNC can’t penalize the entire field of Democratic candidates for
participating, so there is literally nothing that they can do to stop
this debate."

So progressives, schedule a dozen or more additional debates beside those sanctioned by the DNC. Tell that defunct Party structure to go fuck itself and do what democracy demands.

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

See this story. He refused to participate in the upcoming debate if Megyn Kelly was moderating because she treated him unfairly according to the baby. All she did was ask him about the facts of his behavior. This guy and his idiot followers think he can stand up to the treatment a President gets? Fox stood up to the bully and told him to fuck off. Kelly said: "Trump is not used to not controlling things. But the truth is, he doesn't get to control the media." Bravo.

"This election is about changing the parameters of what’s feasible and
ending the choke hold of big money on our political system. I’ve
known Hillary Clinton since she was 19 years old, and have nothing but
respect for her. In my view, she’s the most qualified candidate for
president of the political system we now have. But Bernie Sanders
is the most qualified candidate to create the political system we should
have, because he’s leading a political movement for change."

"The self-identified religious institutions that thrive preach the
perverted 'prosperity gospel,' the message that magic Jesus will make
you rich, respected and powerful if you believe in him. Jesus, they
claim, is an American capitalist, bigot and ardent imperialist. These
sects selectively lift passages from the Bible to justify the
unjustifiable, including homophobia, war, racism against Muslims, and
the death penalty."

See this article. She contends the framing of the practical, head-centered candidacy of Clinton with the idealistic, heart-centered Sanders campaign. She makes the valid argument that even if we accept this framing Sanders is the more pragmatic and intellectually better choice on foreign policy, the economy, healthcare, campaign finance, electability and Wall Street. Sanders beats Clinton on both counts, so the dichotomous framing is a fallacy.

Following up on the last post, here's Reich's latest FB post on how the IA town hall was framed in Clinton's favor. He reframes it no so much in Sanders' but we-the-people's favor that Sanders represents.

"Listening to media coverage of last night's 'town hall' in Iowa, I
keep hearing the Democratic contest characterized as a choice between
Hillary Clinton’s 'pragmatism' and Bernie Sanders’s 'idealism' -- with
the not-so-subtle message that realists choose pragmatism over idealism.
But this way of framing the choice ignores the biggest reality of all
-- the unprecedented, and increasing, concentration of income, wealth,
and power at the very top (unprecedented since the era of the 'robber
barons' in the 1890s), combined with declining real incomes for most and
persistent poverty for the bottom fifth.

See this article. It's not only on polling results but how and why different polls have different results. Polls can be geared to get the results they want by how they are structured. So even those that average all the polls doesn't provide the real picture, since some polls included in those averages are highly biased and skewed.

Monday, January 25, 2016

Following up on this post, here's an article that agrees with what I stated in that post, saying in that Senate speech Warren made clear she will not endorsement Clinton. And that Clinton is in bed with Wall Street, hence her recent attacks on Sanders saying his proposals are "too hard."

Back then he was a champion of the idea. Now not so much after years of taking money from healthcare companies. For example, from the video below:

“Because single-payer is not socialized medicine. Canada has a
single-payer system, and a private health care system. Our single-payer
systems are Medicare and Medicaid and Medicare is quite popular. The
good thing about single-payer is the administrative costs are quite low.
We probably waste $200 billion a year between the insurance
administrative costs, the doctors’ and other health care providers’
administrative costs, and employers’ administrative costs in health care
that we would not waste if we had any other country’s system.”

"Well, there's no doubt that Bernie has tapped into a running thread
in Democratic politics that says: Why are we still constrained by the
terms of the debate that were set by Ronald Reagan 30 years ago? You
know, why is it that we should be scared to challenge conventional
wisdom and talk bluntly about inequality and, you know, be full-throated
in our progressivism? And, you know, that has an appeal and I
understand that.

"The ‘haves’ of the world are always convinced that they deserve their
wealth. That their gargantuan income reflects their ingenuity, ‘human
capital’, the risks they (or their parents) took, their work ethic,
their acumen, their application, their good luck even. The economists
(especially members of the so-called Chicago School. e.g. Gary Becker)
aid and abet the self-serving beliefs of the powerful by arguing that
arbitrary discrimination in the distribution of wealth and social roles
cannot survive for long the pressures of competition (i.e. that, sooner
or later, people will be rewarded in proportion to their contribution to
society). Most of the rest of us suspect that this is plainly false.
That the distribution of power and wealth can be, and usually is, highly
arbitrary and independent of ‘marginal productivity’, ‘risk taking’ or,
indeed, any personal characteristic of those who rise to the top. In
this post I present a body of experimental work that argues the latter
point: Arbitrary distributions of roles and wealth are not only
sustainable in competitive environments but, indeed, they are
unavoidable until and unless there are political interventions to keep
them in check."

This could represent how the AQAL quadrants interact, and how the quadrant themselves, not being absolutely fixed in either content or space/time, themselves change into each other depending on their relative positioning in the rotational cycle. It would also resolve the assholon of everything phenomenon of kennilingus.

In this FB post Reich notes that Krugman 1) doesn't understand political reality and 2) doesn't understand, in Trump's terms, the art of the deal. In terms of political reality the public needs to be mobilized in order to vote in representatives that will implement their wishes. And to incite said mobilization a candidate has to express policies the people believe in and want to see enacted. Sanders is exactly that candidate as proven in poll after poll on the issues.

While Warren doesn't specifically address Clinton's latest attack on Sanders' single-payer idea, it seems that Warren is talking directly to her and her lackeys for taking this tack. Warren's full statement is here. It about Citizens United and the corrupt buying
of politicians. She has 6 fixes to this, all of which are fought by most
all Congressional Republicans and corporate Democrats. Sanders though
is in alignment with these fixes. The quote below ends the
speech, and it could very well be directed against Clinton.

"In the war for endorsements in the Democratic presidential primary, there is a clear trend.
Every major union or progressive organization that let its members have a vote endorsed Bernie Sanders. Meanwhile, all of Hillary Clinton’s major group endorsements come
from organizations where the leaders decide. And several of those
endorsements were accompanied by criticisms from members about the lack
of a democratic process. It’s perhaps the clearest example yet of Clinton’s powerful appeal to
the Democratic Party’s elite, even as support for Sanders explodes
among the rank and file."

Thursday, January 21, 2016

This clip is about how Clinton misled the last debate on Sanders spending bill vote, which had at the last minute a Republican amendment to the bill regarding regulation of commodity futures. Otherwise Sanders would have capitulated to the regressive government shut down, and he was angry that they put that rider in the bill. Hartmann shows how Clinton is using dirty tricks instead of being honest about this vote. And her current campaign financial officer is the guy who wrote that rider! It seems she's so desperate now and once again her true colors shine through.

In
this Reich FB post he underlines a theme I've been discussing in this blog, status quo or revolution. Viva la revolution!

"Yesterday
in New Hampshire, Bill Clinton attacked Bernie Sanders’s proposal for a
single-payer health plan as "politically infeasible" and a 'recipe for
gridlock.' Bill Clinton is correct -- if we accept the current political
status quo. Every progressive idea is a recipe for gridlock as long as
big corporations, Wall Street, and the wealthy continue to dominate our
political system. If you assume Washington is not changeable and that
the vicious cycle of wealth and power dominating American politics and
economics is unalterable, Hillary will make a first-class president for
the system we now have. But if you believe Washington must be changed
and that system can be altered for the benefit of the many and not the
few, Bernie’s leadership and ideas are especially relevant because he's
heading up a political movement."

Wednesday, January 20, 2016

See this article for some more samples of this endorsement. And Trump is proud of her fawning! Birds of a feather they are. An indication of just how sick a portion of the US has become. Here's just one sample of the word salad:

"But for the GOP establishment to be coming after Donald Trump's supporters, even, with accusations that are so false, they are so busted, the way that this thing works. We, you, a diverse, dynamic, needed support base, that they would attack."

"The federal government is accusing Rick Snyder’s Department of
Environmental Quality of blocking efforts to make Flint’s drinking water
safe.The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) placed blame on Michigan state officials Tuesday for 'failures' and 'resistance' to make drinking water in Flint safe for residents again."

"The political version of Christianity is first and foremost a media
construct, like so much of our lives these days. It’s championed by Fox
News, the 700 Club and a parade of has-beens and never weres, selling
the “prosperity gospel” like so much snake oil. It’s a powerful and
toxic stew that is as relevant to Jesus as professional wrestling or a
discarded Playboy. Conservative Christianity in America is less a
religion and more of a secret handshake, a group signifier of exclusion
and moral superiority. Its swaggering and masculine cruelty is at once
its greatest weakness and most attractive feature for working class
white people who have seen their lifestyles and power eroded.

1. He’s more fanatical. Trump is a bully and bigot but doesn’t hew to
any sharp ideological line. Cruz is a fierce ideologue: He denies the
existence of man-made climate change, rejects same-sex marriage, wants
to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, believes the 2nd amendment
guarantees everyone a right to guns, doesn’t believe in a constitutional
divide between church and state, favors the death penalty, opposes
international agreements, embraces a confrontational foreign policy,
rejects immigration reform, demands the repeal of “every blessed word of
Obamacare,” and takes a strict “originalist” view of the meaning of the
Constitution.

It
struck me that Derrida's descriptions of khora and differance sound
reminiscent of Wilber's description of consciousness per se in Integral
Spirituality (Shambhala, 2007). For example Wilber says in Chapter 2:

"This
happens to fit nicely with the Madhyamaka-Yogachara Buddhist view of
consciousness as emptiness or openness. Consciousness is not anything
itself, just the degree of openness or emptiness, the clearing in which
the phenomena of the various lines appear (but consciousness is not
itself a phenomena—it is the space in which phenomena arise)" (66).

Lofgren's new book is The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government. Also see his essay on the topic before the book was published. In the video below Lofgren starts off with this: "The Republicans have become kind of an apocalyptic cult run by authoritarians and most of the base seems to be authoritarian followers." Well worth a look and a read.

The petition to the Justice Department reads:"Conduct a thorough,
tough, and transparent investigation into the poisoning of Flint,
Michigan’s water supply that reaches all the way to Gov. Rick Snyder and
holds him accountable for his role in creating and perpetuating this
crisis."

Tuesday, January 19, 2016

See this article, which contends this is the leading factor in determining who supports him.

"Authoritarians obey. They rally to and follow strong leaders. And they
respond aggressively to outsiders, especially when they feel threatened.
From pledging to 'make America great again' by building a wall on the
border to promising to close mosques and ban Muslims from visiting the
United States, Trump is playing directly to authoritarian inclinations."

Which of course reminds me of Lakoff's work here, and that we must counter authoritarianism with communalism (aka participatory democracy) via effective framing. Which is of course where Sanders comes in. Lakoff
notes that there can be moral pathologies on both sides. For the likes
of Trump it is authoritarianism and narcissism. Liberals need to watch
out for self-sacrifice and hedonism.

See this article. It asks: "If elected president would Donald Trump act on the behalf of the will of
the people, or would he behave more like a dictator—silencing any
dissenting voices, perpetually refusing to compromise, and being
oppressive to certain groups?"

While not all narcissists are necessarily bad people, and some not at all, putting them in such delicate positions of virtually unlimited power can make for very dangerous outcomes like war. Just observing how Trump has changed in the course of his candidacy shows how the mere prospect has turned him to blatant bigot and xenophobe. Conclusion:

Monday, January 18, 2016

See his post here. He reiterates several of Clinton's debate points. Single-payer isn't politically feasible given huge regressive obstruction. Even though he agrees that the increased taxes on the middle class would actually save them money by elimination of co-pays and insurance companies, it's still a tax increase and a hard sell. And the disruption caused by starting over would be another hard sell to the public. He agrees with what Sanders says about single-payer; it's just not going to happen.

See his FB post. I agree that any of these candidates far surpass any of the recalcitrant regressives on the other side. I also agree that Clinton's attacks on Sanders are lame but likely effective to those who don't think much or well. Reich is also right that if you want someone who will maintain the current system and navigate it well then your candidate is Clinton. But if you think the system is corrupt and that it demands a people's revolution to change it, then you have to go with Sanders.

Sunday, January 17, 2016

In this piece Rifkin quibbles with the theme of this year's forum, which is The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Rifkin explains why what is described in the defining essay of the forum is really what he terms The Third Industrial Revolution, but agrees with the content. The important thing is that the WEF is discussing this emerging next wave of socio-economics. Spoiler: It ain't conscious capitalism.

Rommel posted this on Third Way Democrats at FB, a link to Hartmann and Papantonio discussing how Third Way Democrats are really just Republican Wall Street types. Hence they hate Sanders and Warren, representatives of We the People. Rommel also noted how some so-called integralists are taken in by the Third Way as somehow themselves 'integral.' The
Third Wayers know how to manipulate the so-called integralists into
supporting them, since the latter also fall for the superior man/group
(Jedi) leading the way fallacy. Both detest the idea of participatory
democracy, letting the unwashed masses not only decide their own destiny
but the government as well. Tierants all.

Saturday, January 16, 2016

He's already sponsored detailed Bills in Congress on this, so it's there for all to see. As he explains in this video, it's not at all how the regressives, and their come lately mouthpiece Clinton, spin.

From this FB post. Recall he served in Clinton 1's cabinet and knows the Clintons inside out. Hence he now supports Sanders, not Clinton. Quote:

Responses to Bernie Skeptics:

1. “He’d never beat Trump or Cruz in a general election.”

Wrong. According to the latest polls, Bernie is the strongest
Democratic candidate in the general election, defeating both Donald
Trump and Ted Cruz in hypothetical matchups. (The latest Real Clear
Politics averages of all polls shows Bernie beating Trump by a larger
margin than Hillary beats Trump, and Bernie beating Cruz while Hillary
loses to Cruz.)

2. “He couldn’t get any of his ideas implemented because Congress would reject them.”

If both house of Congress remain in Republican hands, no Democrat will
be able to get much legislation through Congress, and will have to rely
instead on executive orders and regulations. But there’s a higher
likelihood of kicking Republicans out if Bernie’s “political revolution”
continues to surge around America, bringing in young people and
millions of other voters, and keeping them politically engaged.

Following up on this post, following is Senator Warren's FB response. The
progressive hope is that Sanders gets the nomination and chooses her as
his running mate. Then they not only win the White House but bring back
Congress to the progressives on their coattails.

"In the 2008 financial crisis, we lost trillions in wealth and
millions of people lost their homes and their jobs because of Wall
Street recklessness. Today, Goldman Sachs announced it will pay $5.1
billion for its role in precipitating the economic collapse by
misleading investors about the quality of the junk mortgage securities
they peddled. Seven years later. No admission of guilt. No individuals
are going to jail. A payment that’s barely a fraction of the billions
investors lost – and the trillions our economy lost – because of this
fraud. And over half of it could be tax deductible! That’s not justice –
it’s a white flag of surrender.

See this article where they agreed to pay $5 billion. It's
a minuscule fraction of what they stole from investors and the public.
I'd be glad to pay back a bank $1,000 after I robbed it for $1,000,000
with no criminal prosecution, but it doesn't work that way for me.

"In our view, Sen. Bernie
Sanders’ plan for comprehensive financial reform is critical for
avoiding another 'too-big-to-fail' financial crisis. The Senator is
correct that the biggest banks must be broken up and that a new 21st
Century Glass-Steagall Act, separating investment from commercial
banking, must be enacted. Wall Street’s largest banks are now far bigger
than they were before the crisis, and they still have every incentive
to take excessive risks."

In February 2008, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton passionately
denounced candidate Barack Obama for criticizing her healthcare plan. "Since when do Democrats attack each other on universal healthcare?!" Clinton exclaimed. She found Obama's comments to be "Republican talking points" and "the worst kind of politics."

Now Clinton and her daughter are
criticizing Senator Bernie Sanders' single-payer plan, falsely claiming
that it will empower Republican governors to strip people of their
health coverage, and that it will cost more.

A single-payer health plan
eliminates private health insurance companies, their bureaucracy, their
advertising, their CEO salaries, and other overhead. Under such a system
of enhanced Medicare for all, everyone is covered, and the cost is
dramatically lowered. Many might pay more in taxes, but not as much more
as they would save by eliminating their insurance bills, deductibles, and co-pays. Unless you're in the top 5% for income, your costs would go down.

And prosecute him for the crime on intentionally poisoning his people. From Moore:

Have you heard the disastrous news out of Flint, Michigan -- my hometown
and the community at the forefront of my first major documentary film
"Roger & Me"? If you haven't, or even if you have, please take a
moment to read this important message.

Michigan
Governor Rick Snyder, along with the premeditated actions of his
administrators, has effectively poisoned the children of Flint by
allowing lead and other toxins to enter their drinking water. The
consequences are devastating now and will be for generations to come.

For this outrageous catastrophe, Gov. Snyder must resign -- and go to jail.

To
poison all the children in an historic American city is no small feat.
Even international terrorist organizations haven't figured out yet how
to do something on a magnitude like this.

I
want to be absolutely clear here: If we don't attract national
attention to what Gov. Snyder did, what happened in Flint could happen
in all of our communities. That's why I need your help to bring Rick
Snyder to justice.

Following up on this post, note
that the Bauwens' post references The Presencing Institute article,
which is based on Scharmer's Theory U. Also recall my rationale earlier
in this thread about why economics is 'spiritual.' To further support
that thesis here (and following) is a Ning IPS post in the Scharmer thread.

See this article which addresses the myth of bi-partisanship. I'd add that it also
applies to the myth of so-called integral trans-partisanship. Sanders
gets this unlike the President, the latter regretting that he couldn't
be more like FDR or Lincoln in that respect. But neither of them were bi-partisan; they vociferously fought for what is right and laid blame where it was due. And one doesn't compromise with those whose express intent is to undermine democracy and institute oligarchy.

Following up on this post, here's another story on Clinton's lying about Sanders healthcare proposal. An excerpt:

"Clinton’s accusations over Sanders’ Medicare-for-All proposal are not
based on the actual policy proposals. They misrepresent the positions
and are misleading at best. Some call this 'blatantly dishonest.' [...] These accusations come out of an old style of politicking that is void
of substance and depends on manipulation of people’s understanding of
issues. Misleading people by misrepresenting the policy positions in
this way borders on a character attack instead of contrasting policy
positions. It is a politics of personality versus the politics of issues
that Sanders is popularizing."

Here's Hartmann on Clinton's latest attacks on Sanders' single-payer healthcare proposal. Hartmann has heretofore been bending over backward to be fair to Clinton but now his patience is wearing thin. He said that not only Hillary lied about it but then sent her daughter out to lie about it too. She's feeling the Bern.

See this article. We can tell a lot by how they responded to Obama's SOTU, what they're for and against. They not only did not clap when Obama mentioned the following, but some looked downright upset about these items.

Nearly 15 million new jobs and the unemployment rate being cut in half.

Following up on the last post, then the ignorant can't think straight and vote for the likes of Trump because he says what he thinks unlike most other lying, manipulating politicians. But then again there's Sanders, who can do the same thing while telling the truth and working for the best interests of the people. However one needs a certain amount of education to see that obvious difference, hence the Republican war on learning.

Tuesday, January 12, 2016

With qualifications, per this study by the US Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The abstract follows:

"Research on social class and generosity suggests that higher-income
individuals are less generous than poorer individuals.
We propose that this pattern emerges only
under conditions of high economic inequality, contexts that can foster a
sense of
entitlement among higher-income
individuals that, in turn, reduces their generosity. Analyzing results
of a unique nationally
representative survey that included a
real-stakes giving opportunity (n = 1,498), we found that in
the most unequal US states, higher-income respondents were less generous
than lower-income respondents.
In the least unequal states, however,
higher-income individuals were more generous.

Monday, January 11, 2016

See this article. An excerpt from the Introduction follows. See the article for much more:

"Manorialism,
commonly, is recognized to have been founded by robbery and usurpation;
a ruling class established itself by
force, and then compelled the peasantry to work for the profit of their
lords. But no
system of exploitation, including
capitalism, has ever been created by the action of a free market.
Capitalism was founded
on an act of robbery as massive as
feudalism. It has been sustained to the present by continual state
intervention to protect
its system of privilege, without
which its survival is unimaginable.

"The current
structure of capital ownership and organization of production in our
so-called "market" economy,
reflects coercive state intervention
prior to and extraneous to the market. From the outset of the
industrial revolution,
what is nostalgically called
"laissez-faire" was in fact a system of continuing state intervention to
subsidize accumulation,
guarantee privilege, and maintain
work discipline.

Following up on this post, Joe has a FB post wanting to hold integral leadership to account for not criticizing capitalism. My response:

Again,
WE are the integral movement and we don't need no stinking
'leadership.'* And WE have extensively criticized capitalism. Perhaps we
also need to own up to our responsibility and quit blaming titular
heads of the movement. I don't give them that power. WE are syntegral!

*
At least not as traditionally defined. Temporary and rotating leaders
in a P2P structure depending on peer credentialing, skill sets and
inclinations, sure.

See this article. Some of the reasons Sanders gives for his policy proposals don't make sense but are still good ideas nonetheless. The article notes that if all the banks misbehave then it doesn't matter if we break up the big banks. But that's not what happened in the financial crisis; the big banks are the ones that committed fraud, not all the small banks. Red herring on that one. The article criticizes Sanders for his reasoning for reinstating Glass-Steagall but thinks it is a necessary step nonetheless. See the article for more.

This article responds to this earlier linked one. It
criticizes the earlier article for conflating the capitalistic
appropriation of the emerging sharing economy with its true forms. An excerpt:

"As Nick Dyer-Witheford argued in Cyber-Marx, there are two
broad groups, sometimes using superficially similar rhetoric but in fact
fundamentally opposed, that celebrate the emergence of a new kind of
society based on current technological trends. One such group, whose
material interests center on putting new wine in old bottles, enclosing
the new liberatory technologies of abundance within a corporate
framework of artificial scarcity for the sake of rent extraction, are
trying to pass off a counterfeit of the real thing. Another group is
promoting the real thing — among them autonomists like Dyer-Witheford,
Hardt and Negri, groups like Oekonux that see peer-production and free
and open-source software as kernels of a future communist society, and
thinkers like Michel Bauwens of the P2P Foundation who envision a system
incorporating non-capitalist markets along with cooperative production
based on the natural resource and information commons. Mason, I think,
falls unmistakably in the latter category. The false prophets of corporate information capitalism do a great
deal of harm in passing themselves off as the real thing. But deluded
figures on the Left like McMillan, who pretend that the two groups are
the same, arguably do even more damage by discrediting our best hope for
a post-capitalist society."

His blog post on this follows below. And
they're at it again with the bespoke CDO. Wall Street's paid
governmental lackeys are paving the way for the next crisis and bailout
at society's expense. I only hope this film wakes up enough people to
vote for Sanders, for he is the only one who will at least try to
curtail this mess.

This FB IPS post wants to call into account the integral leaders for Marc Gafni's transgressions. Here's
oldie but goodie showing the transition to the new P2P participatory
structure. Many of us have been developing this since then, the Ning and FB IPS forum
as prime examples. Shame kennilinguists are still stuck in the top-down
leadership frame and can only see the new development as green. Says
more about the defunct structure than the new one.

Here's Douglas Rushkoff's blog post by the above name, previewing his new book Throwing Rocks at the Google Bus. A few excerpts from the blog:

"We have to stop looking at our economy as a broken system, but one that
is working absolutely true to its original design. It’s time to be
progressive — and this means initiating systemic changes. [...] We are not witnessing capitalism gone wrong — an otherwise egalitarian
currency system has not been corrupted by greedy bankers — but, rather,
capitalism doing exactly what it was programmed to do from the
beginning. To fix it, we would have to dig down to its most fundamental
code, and rewrite it to serve people instead of power."

See this article, where the Governor appointed an emergency manager to balance Flint's budget. In doing so to save money they switched the water supply from the Lake Huron to the polluted Flint River, which eroded the old pipes thereby releasing lead and poisoning people. And the Governor knew this was happening and didn't stop it until it was too late. Your Republican agenda at work America.

Over rejection of the Keystone XL Pipeline, thanks to the Investor State Dispute Settlement section of NAFTA. Meaning the trade agreement's provision allows a corporate to sue a government if it interfere's with its profits. And the arbitration panel overseeing the suit is governed by corporate lawyers who otherwise represent corporate clients in these very same lawsuits. The same provision is in the TPP. Free trade, eh?

See this article. Sanders breaks up the big banks and reinstates Glass-Steagall, Clinton does not. Sanders will invest 3 times Clinton for infrastucture updates and jobs. Sanders miniscule tax hikes on the middle class will increase social security benefits, Clinton will not increase them. Sanders will have free public college tuition by taxing the wealthy, Clinton will not. Sanders is a proud democratic socialist because it works as evidenced by Scandinavian countries, Clinton is a corporate capitalist as witnessed by her contributors and past Senate votes and that system only works for the wealthy.

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In
testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, National Rifle
Association C.E.O. Wayne LaPierre warned that the N.R.A. would
vigorously oppose any legislation that “limits the sale, purchase, or
ownership of politicians.”

“Politicians pose no danger to the public if used correctly,” said Mr.
LaPierre, who claims to have over two hundred politicians in his
personal collection. “Everyone hears about the bad guys in Congress.
Well, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a vote is a good guy with
a vote. I’m proud to be the owner of many of those guys.”

Mr. LaPierre’s comments drew a sharp rebuke from Carol Foyler, a
politician-control advocate who has spent the past twelve years lobbying
for stricter limits on the sale of politicians.

"The Republican-controlled Congress is very proud of themselves for
voting to repeal a law that has given millions of uninsured people
access to health care. Bragging about repealing a law that makes sure
people with cancer and heart disease won't be denied coverage, that
lifts lifetime insurance caps, that closes the prescription drug donut
hole and that lets kids stay on their parents' heath care plans. And
because that's not enough, they're also very proud to defund health care
clinics that 2.7 million women and men use every year. The
Republicans want everyone to know whose side they stand on, so let's
help them. Share their image and let your friends and family know: The
GOP wants to take away health care access for women and families."

He makes clear that the President didn't do a whole lot with his Executive Order. Even the NRA spokesman noted that. And yet the paranoid gun nuts are frothing like rabid dogs that he's coming to take our guns away. Nonetheless Colbert appreciates that at least the President is trying to do something, which is better than nothing, all we get from the Republicans.

Borowitz does it again, showing the absurdity of the Republican viewpoint. His column follows:

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Republican
Presidential candidates ripped President Obama on Tuesday for what they
called his stubborn insistence on linking gun violence with guns.

In
campaign stops across Iowa and New Hampshire, the G.O.P. hopefuls
pounded the President for irrationally concluding that guns have played a
role in the nation’s epidemic of mass shootings.

“How
any reasonable person could look at gun violence and say that guns are
involved is beyond me,” said Texas Senator Ted Cruz. “And yet, somehow,
President Obama always finds a way.”

“I
would very much like to have a conversation about gun violence, as
President Obama has said he wants to have,” said Florida Senator Marco
Rubio. “But as long as he keeps falling back on this tired, unproven
connection between gun violence and guns, there’s just no point.”

And they want even more, hence their 'standoff.' See this from Robert Reich today on what they already get from the government, and yet they complain we're taking away their freedom?

"The
real fight is over how much the rest of us will continue to subsidize
the Bundys and other privateers -- private logging contractors who are
allowed to cut vast tracts of federal forest at subsidized rates,
ranchers who pay grazing fees on some 300 acres of public lands at rates
far below the market rate, private mining companies that now extract
about a billion dollars a year of minerals from public lands without
paying royalties, and farmers who benefit from the federal Bureau of
Reclamation’s irrigation systems that make arid land capable of
producing crops."

Monday, January 4, 2016

In this book Richard Kearney discusses the return of God after atheism, anatheism, with various philosophers. John Caputo has always been one of my favorites and is featured in chapter 9. Some of that chapter is available to review here. On
196-98 Caputo and Kearney discuss Hegel. Caputo is concerned that like
Ricoeur, Kearney might think anatheism is a higher synthesis derived
from atheism and theism. Caputo of course questions this sort of
reconciliation and it turns out Kearney seems to also, since he wrote in
the book of ana-atheism.

See today's column. Obama's tax hikes on the 1% raised $70 billion and the economy is doing better, Obamacare took 17 million of the uninsured roles, gas prices are low, the stock market is booming, we're adding jobs, etc. So much for the doomsday regressive predictions, wrong as usual.

BURNS, OREGON (The Borowitz Report)—A
majority of Oregonians favor building a twenty-foot wall along the
border of their state to prevent angry white men from getting in, a poll
released on Monday shows. The
survey indicates that Oregonians are fed up with irate male Caucasians
pouring into their state and bringing with them guns, violence, and
terrorism.

“This
used to be such a nice state,” said Oregon State Senator Carol Foyler, a
pro-wall lawmaker.

“Since the angry white men came here, parts of it
are unrecognizable.”